double glazing is about the least cost effective energy saving measure you can put inplace, compared to all the other things such as replacing old boilers with condensers, insulation, draught proofing etc. You can prove this for yourself if you do the calcs for your house.
cheers
Jacob
Her reported argument is what I meant. We don't KNOW that it was actually the case. Do we? It certainly doesn't make sense.
Mary
Why "quite rightly"?
These people are jobsworths who abuse their position and restrict the freedom of the very people who pay their salaries.
This is not to say that there does not need to be sensible planning control to prevent monstrosities, but quite often these people in planning departments exceed the intent of the legislation and behave arbitrarily.
It would be worth the investment to put them through the wringer on the hope that they are slapped down.
Are you going to do it, Andy?
Reminds me of belling the cat. I seem to be all nostalgic tonight ... but not so much that I don't agree with Peter.
Mary
It a long running saga that has been reported at length in The Tines and elsewhere. A Google search will reveal more. In essence her argument is that she should not have to obey the law relating to listed buildings. She has put up all sorts of arguments none of which stand up to even cursory scrutiny. An absolute classic case of pig headed stupidity all too common in planning disputes where the building owner thinks they are above the law. Almost without exception it ends up with them losing and with a large bill. Why do they do it?
The thing that is full of holes is the legislature which speaks out of both sides of its mouth, ably assisted by an army of public sector jobsworths who are incapable of earning a proper living and spend their time interfering in people's lives.
On the one hand, there is a whole lot of legislation mandating door widths, electric fitting heights and accesses into public buildings for the disabled.
On the other, we have nonsense like this where a disabled person is fined for adapting her home in a reasonable way to remain independent.
The government inspector concerned should be ashamed and quite frankly should be fired.
Quite.
I've no idea, I wouldn't. But I don't think I have a right to break the law.
Mary
This one isn't likely to affect me since I don't live in a conservation area.
However, in the past, I have successfully mounted a campaign against the abuse of power by a planning department regarding building of an unsuitably located access road to a sports stadium in a park owned by said council.
Essentially, they were acting as judge and jury in their own cause and without proper consultation with those likely to be affected by the works.
Unfortunately for them, several departments screwed up.
- They didn't account for the fact that the road was to be built within a specified distance of what was then a motorway. As it happened, the motorway was elevated and the other side of a railway line, but certainly at the time, the legislation was not specific. It would have required an application to the Secretary of State.
- The road was to run through an avenue of protected lime trees. We approached a professor of botany at the local university who was prepared to go on record that it was likely that the excavations and traffic would damage the roots and endanger the trees.
- They didn't carry out a proper traffic census.
..... and so on.
Money was raised, a solicitor engaged, plus friendly reporters from the local newspapers and TV station. Councillors and the local MP were brought on board.
A public meeting was arranged.
An alternative plan was put together and given to the jobsworths a few days before the meeting.
They came along and pretty much immediately agreed to the alternative proposal.
So it is possible to stop this ridiculous abuse of power. It's a matter of having the will and presenting the case properly. Also, a way for the jobsworths to save face is helpful.
Considering the case of the lady in Oxfordshire, while I don't particularly like the thought of genuine heritage items being replaced with crap, she did so with something that was convincing enough for TV use so can't have been a total monstrosity.
Given that replacement with a lighter door allows her to maintain her independence in her house (not anybody else's house), I think that this should over-ride the conservation issue.
The council didn't *have* to make an issue out of it, but could have acted with common sense and a degree of compassion.
A sensible solution would have been for the original door to have been stored somewhere to be reinstalled at some date in the future when she no longer needs the house.
It seems that the magistrate probably agreed, since the fine was only £300.
The lady has had polio and is in a wheelchair, Peter.
She should not be put into a position of being unable to use her home.
I spent a year trying to get a joiner, before giving up. Probably called about 20, 1 turned up and measured, never to be heard from again. Ended up having to do the job myself.
I am well aware of that.
Her disability is no excuse for breaking the law.
Peter Crosland
Our front window needed replacing when we moved in a couple of years ago, as the house is in a conservation area i phoned the council and asked about fitting a upvc window, eventually they said they couldnt force me to fit a wooden window although they would prefer one to be fitted, a conservation area should not be confused with a listed building.
|What everybody overlooks with energy saving measures is that fitting |double glazing is about the least cost effective energy saving measure |you can put inplace, compared to all the other things such as replacing |old boilers with condensers, insulation, draught proofing etc. You can |prove this for yourself if you do the calcs for your house.
But the almost perfect draughtproofing on ours compares very well with = the less than perfect version it replaced. Must save a as much money as = the windows themselves.
--=20 Dave Fawthrop
17,000 free e-books at Project Gutenberg!I agree about the draughtproofing - that is the reason for the apparent perceived benefits of new draught sealed windows whatever they are made of. The double glazing contribution is small.
cheers Jacob
I would agree. We had 14 1970-ish steel windows replaced with d-g, at a fearsome cost. The improvement in morning comfort is remarkable though...... we don't even know now how cold it is outside until we open the front door. And no more condensation on the insides every cold morning.
Difficult to demonstrate as the industry is barely that old. What is certainly true is that very many plastic windows aged 15 years or more have failed and been replaced.
Laughable nonsense - just take a look at the pathetic condition of a 20 year old window if you can find one.
This is true at about 5 / 10 years. Much longer than that then the replacement profiles start being un-obtainable, and all sorts of other things fail - hinges, catches and the surface of the plastic itself.
True, and todays and tomorrows
Untrue - there have been many studies of this.
Plastic windows also warp, deteriorate and become draughty - but are harder or impossible to repair
Does it? How?
When it is scrapped at about 20 years on.
Period properties, conservation areas, listed buildings are all seen as highly desireable and this is reflected in higher prices, all over Britain. Too high IMO - my daughter recently bought a 20s brick house (with plastic windows) in a pretty village, it was about half the price of anything similar but old and stonebuilt with sash windows. A snip in fact.
cheers
Jacob
|In article , | Dave Fawthrop wrote: | |> But the almost perfect draughtproofing on ours compares very well |> with the less than perfect version it replaced. Must save a as |> much money as the windows themselves. | | I would agree. We had 14 1970-ish steel windows replaced | with d-g, at a fearsome cost. The improvement in morning | comfort is remarkable though...... we don't even know now | how cold it is outside until we open the front door. And | no more condensation on the insides every cold morning.
We installed our Double Glazing over several years as money became available.
--=20 Dave Fawthrop
17,000 free e-books at Project Gutenberg!
Because people who make appeals that are without foundation cost the Council money to deal with. Why should the costs of their stupitity fall on taxpayers generally?
You clearly don't understand the planning and listed building system in general, and this case in particular. The woman had unauthorised work done to a listed building. That is a matter of record. Doing, or allowing, such work top be dome is a criminal offence and nothing to do with the planners directly. Enforcement and prosecution are a matter for the Council's legal department not the planners. In the case in point the woman had a number of opportunities to rectify matters but chose not to do so. The decision to prosecute was taken after consideration by the Council. In the face of refusal to comply with the law they had little choice but to do so. All the costs fell on the culprit rather than on other Council tax payers.
There is no evidence whatsoever that they behaved in anything but the correct manner.
Peter Crosland
I don't have the skill, (or the bottle), to install new windows, especially in this house.
|In article , | Dave Fawthrop wrote: | |> We installed our Double Glazing over several years as money |> became available. | | I don't have the skill, (or the bottle), to install | new windows, especially in this house.
We paid for it, but got the discount as if we had done it all at the same time. Still horrendously expensive :-(
--=20 Dave Fawthrop
17,000 free e-books at Project Gutenberg!HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.